You certainly have it out for these guys. Though, yes, I agree. In this particular situation, they are being overly stubborn. Though, given their fear of the state of certain diocese in the Church, I understand why. If I were a traditionalist, say in Boston, I would be very careful.

Definitely, and I'm not denying or hiding it. I personally think they are responsible for the problems of the RChurch today as much as the liberals are. See, the straight and narrow path is in the middle, the liberals went too far left, and the traditionalists went too far right. I hate it when people say, "well, they're better than the liberals." They're both wrong. Not because one position is wrong means that taking the extreme opposite position becomes right. The Church has gone through many trials through history, just look at the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I can't recall any saint that defended Orthodoxy that displayed the hubris that the SSPX and most other traditional groups are displaying. I mean, the RCChurch has the FSSP. The SSPX is completely expendible.

How do you feel about groups like the Old Believers, Old Calanderists, etc. ?

You certainly have it out for these guys. Though, yes, I agree. In this particular situation, they are being overly stubborn. Though, given their fear of the state of certain diocese in the Church, I understand why. If I were a traditionalist, say in Boston, I would be very careful.

Definitely, and I'm not denying or hiding it. I personally think they are responsible for the problems of the RChurch today as much as the liberals are. See, the straight and narrow path is in the middle, the liberals went too far left, and the traditionalists went too far right. I hate it when people say, "well, they're better than the liberals." They're both wrong. Not because one position is wrong means that taking the extreme opposite position becomes right. The Church has gone through many trials through history, just look at the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I can't recall any saint that defended Orthodoxy that displayed the hubris that the SSPX and most other traditional groups are displaying. I mean, the RCChurch has the FSSP. The SSPX is completely expendible.

How do you feel about groups like the Old Believers, Old Calanderists, etc. ?

Are they in communion with the Orthodox Church?

Old Calanderists are.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

You certainly have it out for these guys. Though, yes, I agree. In this particular situation, they are being overly stubborn. Though, given their fear of the state of certain diocese in the Church, I understand why. If I were a traditionalist, say in Boston, I would be very careful.

Definitely, and I'm not denying or hiding it. I personally think they are responsible for the problems of the RChurch today as much as the liberals are. See, the straight and narrow path is in the middle, the liberals went too far left, and the traditionalists went too far right. I hate it when people say, "well, they're better than the liberals." They're both wrong. Not because one position is wrong means that taking the extreme opposite position becomes right. The Church has gone through many trials through history, just look at the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I can't recall any saint that defended Orthodoxy that displayed the hubris that the SSPX and most other traditional groups are displaying. I mean, the RCChurch has the FSSP. The SSPX is completely expendible.

How do you feel about groups like the Old Believers, Old Calanderists, etc. ?

Are they in communion with the Orthodox Church?

Old Calanderists are.

You gonna open that can of worms here?

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

You certainly have it out for these guys. Though, yes, I agree. In this particular situation, they are being overly stubborn. Though, given their fear of the state of certain diocese in the Church, I understand why. If I were a traditionalist, say in Boston, I would be very careful.

Definitely, and I'm not denying or hiding it. I personally think they are responsible for the problems of the RChurch today as much as the liberals are. See, the straight and narrow path is in the middle, the liberals went too far left, and the traditionalists went too far right. I hate it when people say, "well, they're better than the liberals." They're both wrong. Not because one position is wrong means that taking the extreme opposite position becomes right. The Church has gone through many trials through history, just look at the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I can't recall any saint that defended Orthodoxy that displayed the hubris that the SSPX and most other traditional groups are displaying. I mean, the RCChurch has the FSSP. The SSPX is completely expendible.

How do you feel about groups like the Old Believers, Old Calanderists, etc. ?

Are they in communion with the Orthodox Church?

Old Calanderists are.

Just a clarification: people on the old calendar are (Serbia, Georgia, Russia, etc.) Old calendarists, however, are not. On the other hand some old believers are, if I understand the relationship between at least one group and ROCOR properly, while most aren't. Seems confusing.

Papist, if I may add. I understand what the SSPX is fighting for and I understand why. But there is a right way of doing things and a wrong way of doing things. Fighting for traditionalism doesn't justify how you do it. As Jesus Christ said, by their fruits you will know them. So how can I personally believe that Traditionalism is righteous if the manner they promote it is very anti-Christian. Isn't charity a traditional Christian value? Isn't love part of traditional Christianity? Isn't humility? To me what I see in them and many followers of the Traditional movement is just empty Christianity. They are after the spelndor of the Rites without necessarily living the spirituality. Being a Christian is about living according to the life of God, not about whether you have the prayers at the foot of the altar or not, not whether you receive Communion kneeling or standing, etc. Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism are both trying to rediscover ancient roots as well. ECs are reversing Latinizations, Orthodoxy trying to look at the pre-Turkish Yoke traditions, etc. But I've never seen them approach this dialogue on restoring tradition the way the Tradtionalist movement in the RC has. Yes, we have to be honest about the issues, but there is a line between being honest and being just outright mean.

You certainly have it out for these guys. Though, yes, I agree. In this particular situation, they are being overly stubborn. Though, given their fear of the state of certain diocese in the Church, I understand why. If I were a traditionalist, say in Boston, I would be very careful.

Definitely, and I'm not denying or hiding it. I personally think they are responsible for the problems of the RChurch today as much as the liberals are. See, the straight and narrow path is in the middle, the liberals went too far left, and the traditionalists went too far right. I hate it when people say, "well, they're better than the liberals." They're both wrong. Not because one position is wrong means that taking the extreme opposite position becomes right. The Church has gone through many trials through history, just look at the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I can't recall any saint that defended Orthodoxy that displayed the hubris that the SSPX and most other traditional groups are displaying. I mean, the RCChurch has the FSSP. The SSPX is completely expendible.

How do you feel about groups like the Old Believers, Old Calanderists, etc. ?

Are they in communion with the Orthodox Church?

Old Calanderists are.

Aren't you confusing Old Calendarists with those who just follow the Old Calendar?

The pope told the crowd that he was "well aware of the seriousness of this act, but also aware of the fact that I am no longer capable of carrying out Peter's Ministry with the strength needed." He's sticking around long enough to kick off the Easter season, and will deliver Ash Wednesday mass today, but he's giving up the papacy for Lent and beyond.

« Last Edit: February 13, 2013, 10:58:39 PM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

You certainly have it out for these guys. Though, yes, I agree. In this particular situation, they are being overly stubborn. Though, given their fear of the state of certain diocese in the Church, I understand why. If I were a traditionalist, say in Boston, I would be very careful.

Definitely, and I'm not denying or hiding it. I personally think they are responsible for the problems of the RChurch today as much as the liberals are. See, the straight and narrow path is in the middle,

If by "the middle" you mean the neo-conservative Catholics, then I must say that they can be quite problematic too. Actually, one of the (few?) things I like about the SSPX is their keen ability to point out the problems of the neo-conservatives.

You certainly have it out for these guys. Though, yes, I agree. In this particular situation, they are being overly stubborn. Though, given their fear of the state of certain diocese in the Church, I understand why. If I were a traditionalist, say in Boston, I would be very careful.

We'll be okay. As a matter of fact, I was at Boston's Cathedral of the Holy Cross tonight for Ash Wednesday Mass---according to the Extraordinary Form. The celebrant was a Franciscan Friar of the Primitive Observance, who are based in this Archdiocese. There's lot of opportunities for the traditional Mass around here, and there are some reverent Novus Ordo parishes and shrines in the city and plenty of opportunities for confession and adoration. There's the renowned Archdiocesan Choir School of boys at St. Paul's in Harvard Square (where we in the Harvard Univ. Knights of Columbus have been sponsoring traditional Masses). Boston also has an Anglican Use church and lots of Eastern Catholic churches.

Now that I think of it, I don't know where (or if) the SSPX have a presence here. After all, who needs the SSPX when you have the Feeneyites (who are now regularized and located out in Still River, Mass.)? http://www.saintbenedict.com/

Now, the SSPX does have a huge presence in my hometown diocese in upstate New York, and considering the appalling state of that place, I don't begrudge them for a minute. They have a purpose, and the sooner the canonical stuff is settled, the better.

A few points for the non-Orthodox or Orthodox but confused among us <G>:

* THE "OLD CALENDAR". The "old calendar" is simply the Julian Calendar in use in most of Europe til the "new calendar" (the Gregorian Calendar) was adopted by the Catholic church and, later, most of Europe and its colonies. Most Orthodox Christians use ("are on") the old calendar for church feasts, fasts, etc. In the early 20th century, a synod of several national Orthodox churches agreed to adopt a calendar that is usually called the "Revised Julian Calendar". It retains the traditional Orthodox dates for Pascha and associated holidays, but otherwise closely matches the Gregorian calendar. Romania, Greece, the U.S., Finland and a few other countries use the modified Gregorian/New Julian "New Calendar". Russia, most of Eastern Europe, and most Arab and North African Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches use the Julian "Old Calendar". These groups commune with one another and recognize the others as parts of the Church. Both groups are Orthodox, not Catholic.

* THE "OLD CALENDRISTS". Some Orthodox Christians reject a number of changes that the larger Orthodox churches have made since the early 20th century in the calendar, but also with other aspects of church practice and discipline. These are usually what is meant by "old calendrists". Some of them are in communion with the large national Orthodox churches. Some are not. The ones that are not in communion with the large national Orthodox churches may not recognize the large national Orthodox churches as Orthodox or parts of the Church. The large national Orthodox Churches, in turn, generally view the traditionalist "old calendar" churches that reject communion with them as schismatic. But both sides are Orthodox, not Catholic.

* THE "OLD BELIEVERS" (AKA "OLD RITUALISTS"). In Russia, during the reign of Peter the Great, the patriarch Nikon ordered certain changes to be made to church discipline and practices. A fairly large number of Russian Orthodox (25% or more) refused to go along, and broke from the Russian Orthodox Church over these changes. Like the "old calendrists", the "old believers" are traditionalists who refused to accept changes ordered by the bishops of their church, but the schism occurred during the middle and late 1600s instead of the early and middle 1900s. One group of old believers reunified with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) while it was still out of communion with the Moscow-based Russian Orthodox Church, and thereby ended up back in communion with the main Russian Orthodox Church when ROCOR and the ROC reconciled in 2007. Most "old believers" are still not in communion with the ROC, and the ROC and most other Orthodox churches view them as schismatic. They are Orthodox, however, not Catholic.

The Catholic Church (i.e. all traditional Christian churches that recognize the Roman Pope as their supreme leader on earth) has its schisms and its problems, but these particular schisms and any problems associated with them are our own. Unfortunately. <sigh>

You certainly have it out for these guys. Though, yes, I agree. In this particular situation, they are being overly stubborn. Though, given their fear of the state of certain diocese in the Church, I understand why. If I were a traditionalist, say in Boston, I would be very careful.

Definitely, and I'm not denying or hiding it. I personally think they are responsible for the problems of the RChurch today as much as the liberals are. See, the straight and narrow path is in the middle,

If by "the middle" you mean the neo-conservative Catholics, then I must say that they can be quite problematic too. Actually, one of the (few?) things I like about the SSPX is their keen ability to point out the problems of the neo-conservatives.

If I think the middle can be found in the Roman Catholic Church, shouldn't I still be Roman Catholic right now?

You certainly have it out for these guys. Though, yes, I agree. In this particular situation, they are being overly stubborn. Though, given their fear of the state of certain diocese in the Church, I understand why. If I were a traditionalist, say in Boston, I would be very careful.

Definitely, and I'm not denying or hiding it. I personally think they are responsible for the problems of the RChurch today as much as the liberals are. See, the straight and narrow path is in the middle,

If by "the middle" you mean the neo-conservative Catholics, then I must say that they can be quite problematic too. Actually, one of the (few?) things I like about the SSPX is their keen ability to point out the problems of the neo-conservatives.

If I think the middle can be found in the Roman Catholic Church, shouldn't I still be Roman Catholic right now?

You certainly have it out for these guys. Though, yes, I agree. In this particular situation, they are being overly stubborn. Though, given their fear of the state of certain diocese in the Church, I understand why. If I were a traditionalist, say in Boston, I would be very careful.

We'll be okay. As a matter of fact, I was at Boston's Cathedral of the Holy Cross tonight for Ash Wednesday Mass---according to the Extraordinary Form. The celebrant was a Franciscan Friar of the Primitive Observance, who are based in this Archdiocese. There's lot of opportunities for the traditional Mass around here, and there are some reverent Novus Ordo parishes and shrines in the city and plenty of opportunities for confession and adoration. There's the renowned Archdiocesan Choir School of boys at St. Paul's in Harvard Square (where we in the Harvard Univ. Knights of Columbus have been sponsoring traditional Masses). Boston also has an Anglican Use church and lots of Eastern Catholic churches.

Now that I think of it, I don't know where (or if) the SSPX have a presence here. After all, who needs the SSPX when you have the Feeneyites (who are now regularized and located out in Still River, Mass.)? http://www.saintbenedict.com/

Now, the SSPX does have a huge presence in my hometown diocese in upstate New York, and considering the appalling state of that place, I don't begrudge them for a minute. They have a purpose, and the sooner the canonical stuff is settled, the better.

I don't begrude them that either.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

You certainly have it out for these guys. Though, yes, I agree. In this particular situation, they are being overly stubborn. Though, given their fear of the state of certain diocese in the Church, I understand why. If I were a traditionalist, say in Boston, I would be very careful.

Definitely, and I'm not denying or hiding it. I personally think they are responsible for the problems of the RChurch today as much as the liberals are. See, the straight and narrow path is in the middle,

If by "the middle" you mean the neo-conservative Catholics, then I must say that they can be quite problematic too. Actually, one of the (few?) things I like about the SSPX is their keen ability to point out the problems of the neo-conservatives.

If I think the middle can be found in the Roman Catholic Church, shouldn't I still be Roman Catholic right now?

Yes you sould. But that's another conversation altogether.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

You certainly have it out for these guys. Though, yes, I agree. In this particular situation, they are being overly stubborn. Though, given their fear of the state of certain diocese in the Church, I understand why. If I were a traditionalist, say in Boston, I would be very careful.

Definitely, and I'm not denying or hiding it. I personally think they are responsible for the problems of the RChurch today as much as the liberals are. See, the straight and narrow path is in the middle,

If by "the middle" you mean the neo-conservative Catholics, then I must say that they can be quite problematic too. Actually, one of the (few?) things I like about the SSPX is their keen ability to point out the problems of the neo-conservatives.

If I think the middle can be found in the Roman Catholic Church, shouldn't I still be Roman Catholic right now?

Does the next Pope inherit the cat? Or does the College of Cardinals elect a new one?

No need to be dogmatic about it.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Hmmm... personally, I've always like the idea of an African Pope being elected. Instead of shouting "Habemus Papam", the college of cardinals can hold him above the Vatican balcony while Lebo M. starts singing "Circle of Life."

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

A small confirmation of that theory has come in the form of an interview given to a German newspaper by Cardinal Joachim Meisner of Cologne, one of Benedict’s closest friends in the College of Cardinals.....In response to another question, Meisner said the next pope should have Benedict’s intellectual and cultural depth, but be a younger man – “No more than 70,” he’s quoted as saying."

« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 08:15:55 AM by Jetavan »

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

If you mean this as a reference to NFP, then you don't understand NFP at all. Just saying.

I think coitus interruptus is a sin, in Catholicism.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. ... I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit's role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.

Then the clincher:

There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Does the next Pope inherit the cat? Or does the College of Cardinals elect a new one?

Is it the Pope's cat or the Vatican cat? Like, you know, official 10 Downing St. cat, with lifelong tenure?

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden